Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
HOMEBREW Digest #1886
This file received at Hops.Stanford.EDU 1995/11/17 PST
HOMEBREW Digest #1886 Fri 17 November 1995
FORUM ON BEER, HOMEBREWING, AND RELATED ISSUES
Rob Gardner, Digest Janitor
Contents:
Hop Utilization (Sr. SE)
Counter-pressure Bottle Filler (Douglas A. McCullough)
Red Ale or Red Swell? (HuskerRed)
Frig T-stats (HuskerRed)
Found Web-Page (C. Rosen)
Help - Really slow fermentation of first fruit beer (David Boyd)
Info Request on Oxynator (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
American Brewers Guild Info Summary (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Lauter FAQ- POST PLEASE! (CHARLIE SCANDRETT)
Uncl: Never go back to extracts? ("Calvin Perilloux")
Uncl: Dry Hopped Gushers ("Calvin Perilloux")
Re: repitching on primary dregs (Tim Fields)
Re: bottle conditioning high gravity beers (Tim Fields)
HBD Reader at Drinkur Purdee ("Pat Babcock")
RE: Bleach/Dioxin (Tom Krivec)
Re: Boiling? (John DeCarlo )
Going Back To Extract ("Richard Scotty")
Beer Trivia Game (Keith Frank)
Re: force carbonation (Jeff Renner)
re: partial mash (C. Rosen)
Fix's Mash Schedule ("James Hojel")
Thanks for getting me a job (Mitch Hogg)
Boiling water/Ice chiller (JAWeld)
Brettanomyces is not a Bacteria (Jim Liddil)
yeast added to long secondary? (Larry N. Lowe)
Re: Correction correct? (Dan McConnell)
Bret. correction ("Tracy Aquilla")
Force vs natural CO2 (Btalk)
Re: A Wee Quibble on Yeast -- re: Tracy Aquilla (Jeff Frane)
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!! November 5 thru November 11: The digest
!!! will be unmanned! Please be patient if
!!! you make any requests during this time
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
******************************************************************
* POLICY NOTE: Due to the incredible volume of bouncing mail,
* I am going to have to start removing addresses from the list
* that cause ongoing problems. In particular, if your mailbox
* is full or your account over quota, and this results in bounced
* mail, your address will be removed from the list after a few days.
*
* If you use a 'vacation' program, please be sure that it only
* sends a automated reply to homebrew-request *once*. If I get
* more than one, then I'll delete your address from the list.
******************************************************************
#################################################################
#
# YET ANOTHER NEW FEDERAL REGULATION: if you are UNSUBSCRIBING from the
# digest, please make sure you send your request to the same service
# provider that you sent your subscription request!!! I am now receiving
# many unsubscribe requests that do not match any address on my mailing
# list, and effective immediately I will be silently deleting such
# requests.
#
#################################################################
NOTE NEW HOMEBREW ADDRESS hpfcmgw!
Send articles for __publication_only__ to homebrew@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com
(Articles are published in the order they are received.)
Send UNSUBSCRIBE and all other requests, ie, address change, etc.,
to homebrew-request@hpfcmgw.fc.hp.com, BUT PLEASE NOTE that if
you subscribed via the BITNET listserver (BEER-L@UA1VM.UA.EDU),
then you MUST unsubscribe the same way!
If your account is being deleted, please be courteous and unsubscribe first.
Please don't send me requests for back issues - you will be silently ignored.
For "Cat's Meow" information, send mail to lutzen@alpha.rollanet.org
ARCHIVES:
An archive of previous issues of this digest, as well as other beer
related information can be accessed via anonymous ftp at
ftp.stanford.edu. Use ftp to log in as anonymous and give your full
e-mail address as the password, look under the directory
/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer directory. AFS users can find it under
/afs/ir.stanford.edu/ftp/pub/clubs/homebrew/beer. If you do not have
ftp capability you may access the files via e-mail using the ftpmail
service at gatekeeper.dec.com. For information about this service,
send an e-mail message to ftpmail@gatekeeper.dec.com with the word
"help" (without the quotes) in the body of the message.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 23:39:28 -0500
From: joep@informix.com (Sr. SE)
Subject: Hop Utilization
>>>>> "James" == James Hojel <JTroy@msn.com> writes:
James> Here goes a question that has probably been beaten into the
James> ground by the subscribing audience. I'm hoping someone has a
James> drop of patience left to answer it!! Regarding hop utilization:
James> in Papazian's The New Complete Joy of Home Brewing, he has a
James> table on p. 268 listing various hop utilization rates compared
James> with different gravities. I'm assuming all figures are based on
<snip>
I, too, have been trying to get my IBU calculations correct. Yes,
utilization will differ with pellets vs. plugs vs. leaf. I imagine util
will differ with a hop sack vs. not. I have been told that the
difference with the sack is negligible, so ignore it.
I have two different methods of calculations, both give different
answers. Is there a definitive, accurate method of calculating IBUs
that someone can share?
Thanx,
joe.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Joe Pearl, Sr. Sales Engineer, Informix Software, Inc. |
| 8675 Hidden River Parkway, Tampa, FL, 33637 813-615-0616 |
| Opinions expressed are solely my own. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Idiot, n.: A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human |
| affairs has always been dominant and controlling. AMBROSE BIERCE, "THE |
| DEVIL'S DICTIONARY" |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:05:51 -0600
From: dmccull@alabama.com (Douglas A. McCullough)
Subject: Counter-pressure Bottle Filler
Dear HBD:
This is just to relay an experience that may be of interest to other
homebrewers.
I bottled about 1.25 gallons tonight with a counter-pressure filler,
homemade from the plans in BREW. It worked like a charm. (Except when I
inadvertently removed the filler tube before turning off the beer supply
valve.)
Finding all the parts was harder than anything else. (Isn't it always.) The
assembly instructions were clear and concise. The pictures were worth lots
of words. Building it took hardly any time at all. Using it turned out to
be much simpler than I anticipated.
I did have a slight problem when I connected the system, pressurized at
about 10 psi to a keg of beer being force-carbonated at about 30 psi.
Luckily, no beer flowed into my CO2 regulator and no damage was done.
After reading the Zymurgy reviews of counterpressure fillers, I believe
that this one is just about as good as any available.
Doug McCullough (of the Birmingham Brewmasters)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:29:58 -0500
From: HuskerRed@aol.com
Subject: Red Ale or Red Swell?
I got a HB kit for X-mas a couple of years ago. I made nine brews
from extract (still have the can labels and recipes) and got
dicouraged and retired it. On a scale of a 1 to 9, I think I had
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and a 9! Anyway, I pulled it back from the
garage sale and started a Wheat Ale a couple of week ago. Not bad,
maybe a 6, better than domestic swell.
I then started searching AOL for a board and found HBD (read "The
Virtuoso Digest"). I saw how many of you *occasion brew* and
decided that I should brew a red ale to drink while rooting for
the Huskers during the Fiesta Bowl. Here my problem with my first
grains and extract batch, I cracked a 1/4# of roasted malt and a
1/2# of crystal malt and steeped for a half hour at 160-180F.
Then I added my malt extracts and boiling hops, not straining out
the grains. After 45 minutes, I added finishing hops for a minute
and poured in the fermenter, not straining out the hops or grains
again. A couple of days after high kruaesening, I racked off to a
boy, this time leaving the hops and gains. Am I screwed or should
I relax, not worry, and have a homebrew (just got Charlie's NCJ of
HB). I could have a new batch brewed and bottled by January and I
have everything I need except the malt extract, so I wouldn't feel
bad about doing it again and doing it right.
I am in loved with Pilsner Urquell, nectar of the gods. I would
like to make a clone of this mother's milk my house beer. Charlie
has a recipe but I am sure someone has a better extract recipe
(or just tweaked CP's a bit). Also, what kind of lager yeast
should I use? I can get Wyeast 2007, 2035, 2112, 2124, 2206.
Pilsen 2007 seems like the obvious choice or is it? Got my fride
all most ready. Have a great idea for my thermostat that I explain
in my next post. While I'm asking, how about an extract recipe
for oatmeal stout.
While I'm on Urquell's, why was it a few years ago that it seemed
like quite a few of the 6-packs I bought were skunky and now I
hardly ever find a bad one. Did they change their shipping methods,
bottling methods, are they turning the stuff over faster or
something else?
Is HBing an outlet for the perfectionist? Knowing that you could
have done something just a bit better or different. Hoping the
judges don't notice an obvious flaw, a completely imagined defect.
At least these imperfections have a use!
I won't need a can opener to brew this time next year,
Jason Henning
Kansas City
Please e-mail me at huskerred@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:30:06 -0500
From: HuskerRed@aol.com
Subject: Frig T-stats
Since my last post was for my own sake, I offer my insight on
some of the few topics I know anything about, wiring and these
confounded frig thermostats and ASCII art!! I am a Nebraska
Electrical Journeyman so there ;>. The following is a great
set-up for the HBer because it easy to make, it does no damage
to to the frig it's hooked up to and it can be changed to a
different frig (or any other appliance for that matter) in seconds.
What I plan to do is get a stat that has a bulb on a coil that
has *poles rated for 120V at 15 Amps*. Needs to have a 1/2"
knockout. Be sure to check the temp. range. Then I am going to
get an orange 25" *14 gauge* extensions cord with ground and a
1/2" romex connector and a couple of yellow wire nuts.
Now I'm going to cut the cord about 5' from the female end (he
he he, not very politically correct). Cut about 8" off for scrap
to use later if there is a ground screw in the stat. Strip the
orange insulation back 6" on both ends. Put the romex connector
in the stat's ko and tighten the locknut. Then put the stripped
ends in the connector till the orange insulation is just poking
through the connector and tighten the screws.
And now for Wiring 101. Get that scrap and pull the green wire
out and strip it back 2" to 1", so that the insulation is on the
end of the wire. I=insulation, W=wire
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW I
IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII
This way the wire doesn't fray and can be wrapped around the
ground screw easily, if there isn't a ground screw, skip that
part. Strip and wirenut the two whites together. Strip and
wirenut the three (maybe two) greens together. The black wires
go under the contacter's screws and should be stripped as before
if the screws allow. Some screws have a little pressure plate and
or molded slots that doesn't allow this. If your stat has two
throws (two switches that move together), I wouldn't recommend
wiring the whites to the other contacts and NEVER switch the
ground. If for some reason the contacts would fail with the hot
(black) on and the neutral (white) off, you have a hot neutral.
I think that hot neutrals pack more of a shock than the hot.
I have been shocked }:o by both but can't really prove it and have
no intentions of doing so either.
I love velcro, so I will put some on the stat, the bulb, and the
frig to mount it. Plug in the stat and the frig. Set the stat
and your done. I plan on using a thermometer at first to double
check the stat's calibration.
- ---
I have an idea about aeration filtration. Take two hole stopper
insert a tube that reaches near the bottom of your vessel and one
that is about an inch past the stopper. Fill the vessel half
full with 190 proof and stopper. Connect the long tube to air pump
and the short on to the air stone. Oh no, more ASCII art ... V=Vessel,
T=Tubing, S=Stopper, B=190 Proof.
Air Pump --> TTTTTTT TTTTTT --> Air Stone
T T
V T T V
VSSSSTSSSTSSSSV
V T T V
V T T V
V T V
V T V
VBBBBTBBBBBBBBV
V T V
V T V
V T V
V V
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Feel free to e-mail me if you want more help,
Jason Henning
Kansas City
huskerred@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 95 23:54 CST
From: crosen@wwa.com (C. Rosen)
Subject: Found Web-Page
If anyone's ineterested, I found a really nice web-page devoted to brewing
with lots of neat stuff on it and GREAT graphics:
http://www.tezcat.com/~sstrong/madbrewers/home.html
Hope some find this useful if not amusing. There are some GREAT beer related
quotes.
Harlan
**********************************************************************
* *
* Harlan Bauer, usually at <blacksab@siu.edu> *
* ...but here <crosen@wwa.com> until Dec.1 or sooner. *
* *
**********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 1995 23:47:32 -0600
From: dwboyd@oasis.novia.net (David Boyd)
Subject: Help - Really slow fermentation of first fruit beer
Greetings oh wise and wonderful masters of the brewers art:
I attempted my first fruit beer this weekend (Sun) and the
fermentation has not been as active as I normally get.
I used a modified version of the Washington Apple Ale
on Cat Meow:
1lb Crystal Malt 120L (steeped for 30min)
Added
4lb Tefford Yorkshire Nut Brown Ale Extract
1lb Pure Clover Honey
1lb Light Dry Malt Extract
Boiled 30min
Reduced heat.
Added Apples (5lb) and spices
Steeped 20mins.
Hopped as follows:
2.00oz Fuggles 4.5% 30min
1.00oz Hallertau Leaf 10min and still in primary.
Strained the wort through a fine grain bag over
ice water into bottling bucket. Left cool to 65F.
Pitched Wyeast 1338 European Ale (packet activated 2days previous and had
really expanded) into primary and racked beer on top. (Got some more hop
sediment out that way). Areated really well by stirring.
Added water to bring to 5.5 gal.
O.G. 1.045
The brew has simply not had the active fermentation I am used to.
I cracked the primary today to take a hydrometer reading and there
was an inch of foam but not much pressure escaped.
The gravity today was just over 1.040 which means there has not
been much activity. The brew tasted fine but I could really taste
the honey and was very sweet.
First should I just wait?
Repitch new yeast?
Did I boil the honey too long?
Did I activate the Wyeast too early (hence it was pretty well spent when I
pitched so didn't get a good start)?
I am considering starting to use a secondary to get clearer beer now that
I am using more speciality grains.
Would adding some finings help clear this beer as it is pretty cloudy?
I await your sage advise.
In the mean time I won't worry and will relax with a homebrew.
- --
David W. Boyd Buy/Sell/Trade
EMAIL: dwboyd@novia.net New/Used
- --
David W. Boyd Buy/Sell/Trade
EMAIL: dwboyd@novia.net New/Used
Computer Equipment
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:08:30 -0700 (MST)
From: walter@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Subject: Info Request on Oxynator
Howdy,
I'm thinking about getting an Oxynater from Liquid Bread. It is an
oxygen tank, some sort of regulator deal, and SS diffusion stone. The
price is $39.45 (including shipping). Their ad claims you can oxygenate
75-100 gallons of wort with 1 tank (extra tanks are $12).
Anybody have experience with these setups? If so, can you get the tanks
filled somewhere, such as a medical place, welding place, etc?
Good Day,
- --bjw
Brian J Walter Chemistry Graduate Student walter@lamar.colostate.edu
RUSH Rocks Best Homebrewer & BJCP Certified Beer Judge Go Pack!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 00:09:14 -0700 (MST)
From: walter@lamar.ColoState.EDU (Brian J Walter (Brewing Chemist))
Subject: American Brewers Guild Info Summary
Howdy,
I received 2 replies to my inquiry about the ABG Advance Homebrewers
Weekend Classes. One had taken the course and was dissappointed in the
level of the material. He and the other 'all-grainers' learned little.
The 'extract brewers' in the class seemed much more satisfied. The
second replier hadn't taken the course, but had heard from people who did
that the course is of little value if you can understand what is talked
about in the HBD.
Thanks for the input. FWIW, I'm saving my money.
Good Day,
- --bjw
Brian J Walter Chemistry Graduate Student walter@lamar.colostate.edu
RUSH Rocks Best Homebrewer & BJCP Certified Beer Judge Go Pack!
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 21:08:11 +1000
From: CHARLIE SCANDRETT <merino@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Lauter FAQ- POST PLEASE!
I'm composing a Lauter/Sparge FAQ based on HBD posts and industry sources.
I have,
1/Numerous plans for false bottoms/manifolds.
2/ Megabrewery industry recomendations for false bottoms.
3/ International SS screen sizes
4/ Algis K's description of channeling.
5/ Chemical and mechanical reasons for stuck sparges.
6/ Simple proceedures for monitoring flow rates.
PLEASE POST
a) Additions to the above.
b) Gott cooler modifications for lautering. (In Australia, read "Esky")
c) Details on Phills False Bottom.
d) Details on the "Easy Masher"
e) Whatever else you want included
Charlie (Brisbane, Australia)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 05:27:09 EST
From: "Calvin Perilloux" <dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com>
Subject: Uncl: Never go back to extracts?
Michael K. Cinibulk writes about preferring extract to all grain.
> But, I can not recall anyone saying that they tried all-grain and
> Decided to go back to extract because it was too time consuming,
> or equipment was too expensive, or the difference was not worth it,
> or it was simply a PITA. Is it really true that everyone does not
> go back once they've tried all-grain?
There might indeed be people who have gone back to extract, though
I suspect that most people, once they have made the investment in time
and money to get through the first all grain batch will want to continue
at it, to do better next time, to tinker with the method or the recipe,
as most homebrewers seem to like to do. I certainly doubt anyone would
go back to extract forever because of high equipment costs. They have
already bought the stuff by then! But that also does not mean that an
all-grain brewer will forsake extracts forever, either.
I "graduated" to all grain brewing after a year of brewing with extracts,
but I never gave up extracts entirely. I thought the all grain brews
were great, but there comes a point when quality versus effort has to
be considered. My premium beers that I would sip in the evening and
enter in competitions were usually all grain. My first run with a new
yeast or other experimental batches were usually extract so that if it
turned out bad, then at least I haven't spent 6 hours in the kitchen
to crank out a bad batch.
When I would brew a batch of non-descript ale for the odd summer picnic,
I also often went the extract route. It's easy, it's predictable (as
long as I used the same supplier of fresh extract), and it makes quite
good enough beer for a casual setting. Heck, it even makes award
winning beer sometimes, as you can see from the winner lists in various
competitions. So no, we don't all give up on extract, but maybe we
don't spend as much time discussing it as we do all-grain.
Calvin Perilloux "Bayerisches Bier,
dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com Staerker als Heimweh"
Erding, Germany
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 05:33:06 EST
From: "Calvin Perilloux" <dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com>
Subject: Uncl: Dry Hopped Gushers
Greg Heiler writes about gushers after dry hopping with leaf hops.
>instantly foams up and fills the glass. When it settles, I'am left with
>1/5 of a glass. I noticed ring around the collar on the bottle and
>suspect a bacteria infection.
Yes, right on target. Whether from leaf hops or from something else.
>Further evidence is the extended resurgence of air
>lock bubbling after dry hopping.
Resurgence is the key word here. It is possible that the infection was
already in place and just took time for the bacteria to multiply to high
enough numbers to make fermentation appear to take off again; however,
if the leaf hops did introduce scads of new bacteria in there, then
this resurgence is exactly what you would expect.
How is the flavor? I think that with a ring and serious gushing,
you are looking at infection problems, and the flavor should let you
know if it's bacteria and not slow working yeast.
>Is dry hopping with whole leaf riskier than plugs or pellets?
No idea, but don't believe anyone who tells you that bacteria CANNOT
live on leaf hops because hops are antibacterial. The components in
hops, yes, when reacted in the brew kettle, are antibacterial (maybe
just bacteriostatic), but any kind of dust and stems and traces of
bird droppings and who knows what else on the hops can harbor bacteria.
It's just a chance you take in dry hopping beer.
I would NEVER repitch yeast left after a dry hop. I would also tend
to dry hop batches that were already high in preservative hop bitter-
ness and perhaps alcohol, too, or I would drink the dry hopped beer
pretty quickly. Actually, I do tend to drink dry hopped batches quite
quickly, but that's just because I love the flavor.
Calvin Perilloux "Bayerisches Bier,
dehtpkn9@ibmmail.com Staerker als Heimweh"
Erding, Germany
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 95 06:35:14 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: repitching on primary dregs
In # 1883, dmercer@path.org (David Mercer) writes:
>I have a five gallon batch of what I'll call, for lack of a better name, a
>"Winter Warmer" that is one week in a primary and will be ready to rack to a
>secondary in another few days. I'd like to reuse the yeast (1098) from the
>primary to make a barleywine. I was planning on brewing next weekend, and
>thought about just dumping the barleywine wort on top of the dregs of the
>WW. But I am skittish about throwing new wort on all that old trub. What's
>the consensus? Should I go to the trouble of trying to separate trub from
>viable yeast first, or can I just go ahead with the lazy man's solution?
>
If I was to use the yeast, I would wash it instead of pitching onto the
trub-laden yeast. Then again, your barleywine might well mask any off
flavors from the trub? However ... how do the OGs of your "Winter
warner" and your "Barleywine" compare? Your yeast is acclimated for the
gravity environment of the "Winter Warmer", and might not do so well in
your Barleywine if it has a substantially higher OG.
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 95 06:35:05 EST
From: Tim Fields <74247.551@compuserve.com>
Subject: Re: bottle conditioning high gravity beers
In #1883, Dave Hensley <dhensley@ttsi.tandem.com> writes:
>I have had trouble getting adequate levels of carbonation in several
>high-gravity beers I have brewed, kulminating in the current problem with my
>Christmas beer. The O.G. was 1080+, and I primed normally (4 oz corn sugar
>in 5 gallons). I also shot a fresh batch of yeast (WY1214) in during
>priming. After 6 weeks at about 75 degrees, insufficient carbonation. I'm
>debating ranching some champagne yeast and repriming the bottles and would
>be interested in any experiences anyone has had doing this. My particular
>concern is overattenuation and/or flavor changes from the champagne yeast.
>
I have sort of settled on 4.75 to 5 OZ for my taste. I used 4.5 OZ for
an amber ale and got what I would term low-to-medium carbonation - nice
and light, and it took 2 or 3 weeks to get there. I would suspect that,
for me, 4 OZ would either take forever to carbonate, or would be too
"flat" for my taste. My guess is that if you leave it long enough, you
will get enough carbo to make it drinkable (depending you _your_ taste).
There should be enough yeast in there, especially with the bottling
yeast. With an OG of 1080, it should hold ok for awhile in the bottles to
see if it will eventually carbonate "as is", and if I were you, that's
what I would do :-). If I was to add anything, it would be some more
priming sugar or extract.
>I also have a tripple ready for bottling, and I don't want to screw it up too.
>Any help would be appreciated.
Phil Seitz's Belgian series suggests for a 5 gal tripel batch: bottling
yeast (slurry from a 1 pt starter) and 1 cup priming sugar (i'd estimate
abt 5 oz).
"Reeb!" Tim Fields ... Fairfax, VA
timf@relay.com (non-brewing time)
74247.551@compuserve.com (weekends)
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 07:03:25 +0500
From: "Pat Babcock" <pbabcock@oeonline.com>
Subject: HBD Reader at Drinkur Purdee
Greetings, Beerlings! Take me to your lager!
Due to all the trouble reports I was receiving on downloading Ken
Schwartz's HBD reader, I have put a zipped version of the file
online. I have yet to encounter a web browser that didn't know how to
handle a zip file.
Also, if the index page is giving you difficulty, go directly to
http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/brew.html. Most who have encountered
difficulties have been using Netscape with their link colors set such
that the trigger word have blended into the backgound color.
Ah, the life of a public servant...
See ya!
Pat Babcock in Canton, Michigan (Western Suburb of Detroit)
pbabcock@oeonline.com URL: http://oeonline.com/~pbabcock/
Beer is my obsession and I'm late for therapy!
-- PGB
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 13:21:44 +0100
From: Tom Krivec <8935174@unileoben.ac.at>
Subject: RE: Bleach/Dioxin
There are a few points that I really want to bring into the discussion about
bleach and dioxin.
As Tim Lacy mentioned in HBD 1880 dioxins are a group of organic compounds.
One of those compounds got very famous in the mid-seventies when there was a
desaster
in a chemical plant in Seveso, Italy. There about 100g (~4 ounces) of
2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro-dibenzo-para-dioxin (TCDD) were blown into the air.
(Since that word is quite hard to pronounce, the mass-media made the word
dioxin famous.)
The people found out that something had happened when they found most of the
cattle
being dead the next morning.
In Seveso no human died, but the people had serious problems with their skin.
Today twenty years after the desaster a lot of people suffer of
consequential diseases.
(I am sorry, but I do not know what kind of diseases right at the moment,but
if you are interested I am sure I can get that information.)
Furthermore the infant-mortality and the number of people suffering from
cancer seems to be higher in the area around Seveso (not scientifically
proofed).
Dioxin is synthesized when any material that contains chlorine (and almost
every material does so) is burnt at not very high temperatures.
Even if a campfire burns a very small amount dioxin of is formed
(It`s not detectable, but fires are the reason why there is dioxin in our
nature that was not made by mankind).
Once a chemist told me that the reason why humans are quite resistant to
dioxin is that we are the only species that has been exposed to smoke for
more than 500000 years and we simple got used to it(I don`t know if it`s
true, but I really can imagine it is).
Nevertheless today it is known that dioxin is the most toxic substance that
has ever been made by mankind.
Only 0.0000000000005 g (!!!!!) of TCDD will have toxical effects on a human
being.
For that reason it is a little bit strange if Tracy Aquilla says in HBD 1880 :
>Recent estimates of the world-wide production of dioxin are about 35 pounds
per year.
You could kill more than the whole population of the earth with that 35
pounds!!!
But I don`t think that you can get dioxin into your homebrew if you use
bleach-solution to sanitize your equipment. I also clean my things with
bleach and I can tell you that I have had more than only one homebrew (:-)
. As you can see I am still in a good shape, so my theory is that no dioxin
can be found in a homebrew.
I do not really know how bad bleach is for the environment but
I found a book which said that Hypochlorite-solution has been used since
1785 (!) as a bleaching agent. I would appreciate any info about that topic
but please mail private since I do not know if chemistry&environment is the
correct topic for the HBD
I hope I did not make anyone of you go wild, by talking about chemistry in
this forum,
but I think it is important to know all that dioxin-stuff.
And now I am rather thirsty.
Prost!!!
Tom Krivec
8935174@unileoben.ac.at
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- -----------
Thomas Krivec 8935174@unileoben.ac.at
Lainger Flurweg 9
8740 Zeltweg/Austria
Ein Bier ist kein Bier ...
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
- ------------
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 07:58:04 EST
From: John DeCarlo <jdecarlo@homebrew.mitre.org>
Subject: Re: Boiling?
Phil Finkle (phil.finkle@sid.net) writes:
>Saw a note the other day that implied that boiling is not necessary if you
>are using well water. Is that correct? I have made several batches of
>homebrew using various malt extracts. I have always boiled for about 30
>minutes and everytime, save one, something apparently got burned and the
>resulting brew, while tasty, was much darker than it should be.
Ooops. That was me, I believe. I try to always shorten my posts when I
re-read them, but sometimes that results in overly cryptic portions.
Pre-boiling the brewing water is important for lots of brewers--they may
need to sanitize the water or may need to drive off chlorine or excess
water hardness. Some brewers may be able to brew with water straight from
the tap. That is what I referred to (Brewer A has to pre-boil his well
water because of hardness. Brewer B can put his well water straight into
the brewpot because it is perfect for brewing right from the tap. Everyone
is different.).
Boiling the wort is a whole 'nother issue. When using extracts and not
adding hops or anything else (typically a "kit" brew), you may well benefit
from not boiling very long. Some kits are pre-boiled, others benefit from
typical boiling--depends on how the kit or extract was prepared.
When you add your own hops or mash grains or do several other things, a good
vigorous boil for 60 minutes or more is almost mandatory. This is also a
whole 'nother topic.
How to avoid burning your wort? Possibly just using a thicker bottomed pot
would help spread the heat better. If using extract, it helps to boil the
water first, take the pot off the heat, add the extract, and stir until
everything is dissolved. Then put it back on the heat. This stopped all my
wort burning problems long ago. Factors include how the heat is applied
(gas vs. electric and how hot), the pot (aluminum clad bottoms spread heat
nicely, thin stainless steel bottoms don't and burn things more easily),
whether anything settles on the bottom, etc.
Sorry to imply anything confusing earlier. And the same goes for whatever I
have above that confuses, too. <grin>
John DeCarlo, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA--My views are my own
Fidonet: 1:109/131 Internet: jdecarlo@mitre.org
------------------------------
Date: 15 Nov 1995 06:45:14 -0700
From: "Richard Scotty" <richard_scotty@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com>
Subject: Going Back To Extract
Mike Cinibulk asks if any all grain brewers have gone back to extract. Well
Mike, I've been brewing all grain for about a year and a half now and in
front of the Digest I will now reveal my deepest, darkest secret.
This summer, the tanks were getting low and between kids, sports, and my
wife, my schedule was such a mess that I couldn't find a day to dedicate to
brewing. I then decided that necessity dictated that an extract "quickie"
was in order. I whipped up an extract ordianry bitter from extract with a
very small (and quick) mini-mash. I did a full volume boil since I have that
capability anyway. The whole process took 3 hours start to finish including
cleanup.
The resulting beer was a good, solid bitter. Was it as good as my all grain
version? Probably not. Was it better than empty tanks? Absolutely.
So there you have it - confessions of a (sometimes) closet extract brewer.
Seriously, there seems to be a perception on the digest that there is
something "wrong" with extract brewing. Nothing could be further from the
truth. I've had some wonderful extract brews. I enjoy the all grain brewing
process and the tinkering (and control) that the all grain process makes
possible and now that winter is upon us, I've bought a couple of 50 lb sacks
of grain and things are again busy at the Crapshoot Brewery.
Rich Scotty - Chief Carboy Cleaner - The Crapshoot Brewery
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 07:51:38 -0600
From: keithfrank@dow.com (Keith Frank)
Subject: Beer Trivia Game
********** From Mark DeWeese ************
Fellow beer aficionados, let me start this post by saying this
IS NOT a shameless promotional tactic, but merely an attempt
to get some straight-forward feedback on my idea.
I have a patent pending on a beer trivia/educational board game that
I developed as a fun way to learn about beer and brewing while at the
same time testing one's knowledge of the subject.
Before proceeding any further with development and manufacturing, I would
like to check market viability. I feel that this is an excellent forum
in which to take a sample survey.
I would pose two questions:
1) Have you ever seen or heard of such a game ?
2) Do you think it will sell ?
Understandably, I can't go into the details of the game, but I can tell
you that it incorporates a wide variety of beer/brewing related elements
and is structured for novice, intermediate and advanced levels of play.
The game does not promote drinking, but rather a greater knowledge of the
subject we all know and love.
TIA...
Mark DeWeese
c/o keithfrank@dow.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 09:23:41 -0500
From: Jeff Renner <nerenner@umich.edu>
Subject: Re: force carbonation
In HBD 1884, "Keith Royster" <N1EA471@mro.ehnr.state.nc.us> asks:
> And now for my question regarding carbonation. I've
> seen it stated many times on the HBD that naturally
> carbonated beer has better carbonation than beer that is
> forced carbonated in kegs, but I've never seen an
> explanation. If I remember correctly, many of you
> beleive that the carbonation from priming bottles or
> kegs gives finer bubbles than the coarser, soda-pop type
> bubbles that you get from force carbonating.
>
> My question is, can anyone explain this alleged
> phenomenon? I've used both proceedures for carbonating
> my brew, and I'm not sure I see any difference. And I
> also can't imagine a scientific explanation for why it
> would make such a difference. Is this just another HBD
> MOMism that should be put to rest, or can someone
> explain the mechanics behind it all?
HBD MOMism. RIP.
I am certain that there is no difference. I have seen this argued wrt
bottle fermented champagne as well, but never in any way convincingly.
Bubble size is dependent on factors that have apparently not been well
resolved (protein size?), but the manner and speed in which CO2 is
dissolved is manifestly not a factor. It does seem that coarse bubbles
and poor head retention may go together, but that may just be that
coarse bubbles make a coarse head, which collapses more quickly. Right
now I have on tap a lovely Dusseldorfer Alt that I kegged, force
carbonated, and tapped the first glass of all within one hour. It has a
fine bead (as opposed to coarse, that's champagne talk, it means the
bubbles are tiny) and great head retention.
- -----
Jeff Renner in Ann Arbor, Michigan c/o nerenner@umich.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 08:01 CST
From: crosen@wwa.com (C. Rosen)
Subject: re: partial mash
Mike Cinibulk asks: What about partial mashing; is there anyone that found
this to be a good compromise...?
Don't do it Mike, that's how it starts...I'll just add a few grains, crush
them with a rolling pin. Then it's more grains and motorized maltmills; RIMS
and ToxiTherm brew kettles; the addition you were adding to your house for
your dear old mother has been turned into a brewery; your wife has divorced
you and gotten the kids...
Sound familiar? But it's not too late. Please, Mike, seek help now before
it's too late.
Sincerely,
Harlan Bauer
BTW, are you using that carboy?
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 95 13:36:34 UT
From: "James Hojel" <JTroy@msn.com>
Subject: Fix's Mash Schedule
Tim Fields had a question in HBD #1884 about G. Fix's post on a 40 60 70 mash
schedule. Where can I find this post (HBD #) or can someone e-mail it to me?
Thank You
James Hojel
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:45:46 -0500 (EST)
From: Mitch Hogg <bu182@freenet.toronto.on.ca>
Subject: Thanks for getting me a job
I'd just like to take a moment to thank the collective for anything it
might have done to help me get a job the other day. As a starving
graduate student, I've had my eye out for part-time work for the past few
months, but I did not relish the thought of selling shoes or (shudder)
telemarketing. Last week, I wandered into a local wine-making place with
the goal of buying a new 23-litre carboy, and noticed that they needed
part-time help. Now, my wine-making experience is limited to two batches
a couple of years ago, but, thanks to the technical jargon and
fermentation techniques I've learned from HBD, I managed to impress the
owner enough to weasel myself a job. Now I can continue to go to school,
and more importantly, to brew beer.
Mitch.
P.S. Armed with my new knowledge (and access to materials), I think I'm
going to try my hand at some wine at home. You don't even have to turn on
the stove to make that stuff.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:52:42 -0500
From: JAWeld@aol.com
Subject: Boiling water/Ice chiller
In the HBD from 11/14/95, Phil.finkle ask if it is necessary to boil well
water. I would have to say yes, it is necessary. For the same reason you
boil water before feeding to newborn infants. You should boil all water to
remove the chance of bacterial infection. And after all, isn't a batch of
brew as helpless as a baby?? I would be especially careful of well water,
which may or may not be chlorinated. Then there is the carbon filter angle.
Would one of you chemist/water treatment types care to educate us further?
In the same issue Glen R. Geisen ask about using ice as a wort chiller. I
had one experienced brewer tell me about a similar approach, but he kept the
ice sealed in small, plastic bottles that he debugged with a sanitizer before
adding to the hot wort. He claimed it was fast, easy to reuse the bottles
and not as water intensive as an immersion chiller. I like my immersion
chiller just fine. Although I am thinking about adding a second coil to act
as a pre-chiller. You know, say 5 or 10 feet of 3/8 od copper wound in an
ice bath. Any suggestion would be appreciated.
TIA,
Amos Welder
JAWeld@aol.com
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 8:06:54 -0700 (MST)
From: Jim Liddil <JLIDDIL@AZCC.Arizona.EDU>
Subject: Brettanomyces is not a Bacteria
> From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
> Oh, but it does! You said yourself that the package states: ADVANCED YEAST
> CULTURES. To me, this indicates that there is yeast in there. Fairly simple,
> isn't it? Brettanomycetes are bacteria, not yeast. Since the product is
> intended for brewing, I assume the yeast is S. cerevisiae (it is). There are
> also some Bret. sp. bacteria in there as well. I think even the old label
> made that clear, but the new label goes one step further.
>
> >Unlike most of the yeasts Wyeast sells, this particular yeast was labeled as
> >a specific strain (note the use of the latin) and not as a general style.
>
> Not really. It's labelled as an "advanced YEAST culture" containing B. brux.
> It does not state (or even imply) that it is a pure bacterial culture. In
> fact, none of their packaging implies that the cultures inside are pure, and
> several of their 'strains' are actually mixtures. This is a fact well-known
> by many homebrewers. It might be a bit confusing to the uninitiated, but it
> has always been clear to me what's in that package of #3278: yeast and
> bacteria.
Last time I looked at Kreger van Rij, Brettanomyces (or Dekkera) was a yeast.
Did things change in the last few weeks? :-)
Jim
jliddil@azcc.arizona.edu
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 9:06:05 CST
From: Larry N. Lowe <lnl@apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov>
Subject: yeast added to long secondary?
collective wisdom --
i recently left a bavarian pilsner in a glass carboy for 2-3 weeks
after racking off the primary and then again a couple days later
off the secondary (yeah, i know my subject line inappropriatly said
i left it in the secondary). i had a question prior to brewing
this batch about the effects of "quasi-long-term" aging in the carboy.
responses generally said that some problems might arise in carbonation
of the beer due to the lack of viable yeast. they suggested adding
some yeast to the carboy prior to priming. well....i did, i believe
i added more than enough yeast. i added about 1/2 a pack of dry ale
yeast (i know, i should measure, but didn't know appropriate amount,
hence my question) the night before bottling/priming. the next day,
there was a considerable amount of "trub?" in the bottom, which
kinda defeated by PART of my purpose of racking off the primary,
i.e. less sediment in the bottles.
how much yeast (5 gallon batch) should i have added and when?
TIA
- --
from: Larry N. Lowe
NOAA, National Weather Service
Arkansas-Red Basin River Forecast Center
lnl@apwk01g3.abrfc.noaa.gov
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 10:09:13 -0500
From: danmcc@umich.edu (Dan McConnell)
Subject: Re: Correction correct?
>From your post to HBD 1884:
>> Corection: English Ale-A10 is Ringwood (the source was
>> an East Coast brewery, BTW.not London-A03.
>
>A10? Really? I said A09, based on your post from last Dec.
>Jeff
Well Jeff, you are absolutely correct. My correction was wrong.
[insert self-depreciating comment here]
DanMcC
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 95 10:31:46 CST
From: "Tracy Aquilla" <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu>
Subject: Bret. correction
In Digest #1884:
Tracy Aquilla (ME) <aquilla@salus.med.uvm.edu> says:
>Brettanomycetes are bacteria, not yeast.
Time for me to eat some humble pie: it's yeast. I sure blew that one. Thanks
for the friendly reminders. I think I'll bow out of the yeast thread now. :-*
Tracy in Vermont
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 11:25:32 -0500
From: Btalk@aol.com
Subject: Force vs natural CO2
The idea that force carbonated beer has different/coarser bubbles than
natural carbonation would create is just another momism.
I've been force carbonating since I started kegging about 2 years ago. The
counterpressure filled beers I've entered in contests have never been dinged
points for carbonation.
Even a force carbonated Weizen this past summer came out 'highly
effervescent' as per the style guideline, and took Best of Show.
My guess is that the make up of the beer itself has more to do with this than
anything else.
Doesn't club soda come across as being rather coarsely
carbonated?
Regards,
Bob Talkiewicz, Binghamton, NY <btalk@aol.com>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 15 Nov 1995 09:26:08 -0800
From: jfrane@teleport.com (Jeff Frane)
Subject: Re: A Wee Quibble on Yeast -- re: Tracy Aquilla
Far be it from me to argue with Tracy on this issue, but I do have a small
quibble:
>Oh, but it does! You said yourself that the package states: ADVANCED YEAST
>CULTURES. To me, this indicates that there is yeast in there. Fairly simple,
>isn't it? Brettanomycetes are bacteria, not yeast.
If memory serves, Brett. *are* yeast, although they are not Sacchromyces.
I think most of your argument holds water, but this is a needless
distinction to make.
The actual *contents* as required by law, read "liquid yeast & malt
nutrient" (I know this, because I've been typesetting their labels from the
beginning).
>Not really. It's labelled as an "advanced YEAST culture" containing B. brux.
>It does not state (or even imply) that it is a pure bacterial culture. In
>fact, none of their packaging implies that the cultures inside are pure, and
>several of their 'strains' are actually mixtures.
Actually, Tracy, most of the packaging refers to "pure yeast cultures" and
always have. The label in question is used on several different packages:
"pure yeast cultures" is on the section with Wyeast's old line; the "advanced
yeast culture" is on the advanced strains (originally produced without the
smack pack); and the last group are the high volume yeast blends.
- --Jeff Frane
------------------------------
End of HOMEBREW Digest #1886, 11/17/95
*************************************
-------
